Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 17:06:42 -0500 From: Bill Moran <wmoran@collaborativefusion.com> To: Eygene Ryabinkin <rea-fbsd@codelabs.ru> Cc: Nick Barnes <Nick.Barnes@pobox.com>, freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Multiple default routes on multihome host Message-ID: <20080218170642.e079540d.wmoran@collaborativefusion.com> In-Reply-To: <6xiZ7xvVdDqVhj0EdhE90pfdIcQ@S1JitD8kpKQ9sTxL7Qyzy/kv7rU> References: <38308.1203368454@thrush.ravenbrook.com> <20080218163618.5e6672d3.wmoran@collaborativefusion.com> <6xiZ7xvVdDqVhj0EdhE90pfdIcQ@S1JitD8kpKQ9sTxL7Qyzy/kv7rU>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In response to Eygene Ryabinkin <rea-fbsd@codelabs.ru>: > Bill, > > Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 04:36:18PM -0500, Bill Moran wrote: > > I would suggest you ask yourself (and possibly the list) _why_ you think > > multiple default routes is necessary ... what is it that you're hoping > > to accomplish. I'm guessing your looking for some sort of redundancy, > > in which case something like CARP or RIP is liable to be the correct > > solution. > > I had faced such situation once: I had multihomed host that was > running Apache daemon that was announced via two DNS names that > were corresponding to two different IPs, going via two different > providers. When the first provider's link goes down, the second > provider is still alive, and when both providers are alive, the > traffic is balanced via DNS round-robin alias. Do you see some > better way to do it via CARP, RIP, something different? I am still > interested in other possibilities. The canonical way to do this is with BGP. I can be done with CARP if both providers support it and are willing to work together. -- Bill Moran Collaborative Fusion Inc. http://people.collaborativefusion.com/~wmoran/ wmoran@collaborativefusion.com Phone: 412-422-3463x4023
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20080218170642.e079540d.wmoran>